The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 23, 2013, 09:46 AM   #1
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,942
Washington Post article on selective editing by anti-gunners

Here's an interesting article on The Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...cd5b_blog.html

I can't see the videos here at work, due to our firewall, but the article looks like one of which we should be aware. It deals with selective editing of a video, which was then run as an anti-gun message. It's from the WaPo's "Fact Checker" and the video got a "Three Pinocchio" rating, out of a possible four.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 09:59 AM   #2
Closing The Gap
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: Michigan/Nevada
Posts: 250
At least they're balanced and link to the misleading NRA ad as well. I think nothing is gained when both sides stray from the facts.
__________________
Half the country hates my business, the other half my hobby.
Closing The Gap is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 10:16 AM   #3
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,493
Quote:
Mark you this, Bassanio,

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart.

Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
As it is, it has always been, apparently. Eh? Even the Good Bard knew oh so long ago. And yes, it worketh both ways.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 10:21 AM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,298
The most amazing part of that is that they only gave it 3 Pinocchios. If that only gets 3, I can't imagine what it would take to get 4.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
---
You do not HAVE a soul. You ARE a soul. You HAVE a body.
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 23, 2013, 11:48 AM   #5
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,376
Quote:
The most amazing part of that is that they only gave it 3 Pinocchios. If that only gets 3, I can't imagine what it would take to get 4.
It's explained in a link at the bottom of the WP article:
Quote:
The Pinocchio Test
Where possible, we will adopt the following standard in fact-checking the claims of a politician, political candidate, diplomat or interest group.

One Pinocchio
Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.

Two Pinocchios
Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.

Three Pinocchios
Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.

Four Pinocchios
Whoppers.
IOW blatant and outright lies about Rep. Barrow would be required to earn four. The ad falsely twists and exaggerates his positions, but it does so by using symbolism and implying guilt by association, rather than by making any explicit statements. IMHO three is appropriate.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07187 seconds with 9 queries